Disposed

Sajan Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2023WP(C)/2291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held the RTO was not bound to reject a permit application mechanically due to a financier's silence. It directed the RTO to give parties an opportunity of being heard and decide on the renewal of the temporary stage carriage permit within one month under Section 51(9) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the petitioner to resubmit the application with a declaration before the 2nd respondent; the respondent to afford opportunity of being heard to all parties and decide on the renewal of t

Sajan Philip Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE20THDAYOFMARCH2023/29THPHALGUNA,1944
WP(C)NO.2291OF2023

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

SAJANPHILIP
AGED50YEARS
KAROTTUPALACKALHOUSE,SOUTHPAMPADYP.O.,
VETTAKUNNU,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686516

¶5

BYADVA.K.HARIDAS

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1STATEOFKERALA
REP.BYSECRETARYTOGOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENTOFMOTORVEHICLE,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM,PIN-695001
2REGIONALTRANSPORTOFFICER(R.T.O.)
R.T.O.OFFICE,CIVILSTATION,
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686002
3MANAGER
HINDUJALEYLANDFINANCELTD.,KOTTAYAMBRANCH,
5361STFLOOR,THADATHIBUILDING,SHASTHRIROAD
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686002
BYADVSUSANTHSHAJI

¶8

SMTAMMINIKUTTY,SR.GP

¶9

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON20.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2023

¶11

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The petitioner states that he is the registered owner of vehicle

¶14

bearing registration No. KL-05 AV-1970. It is submitted that the vehicle was purchased by availing finance from the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that seeking issuance of temporary stage carriage permit, Ext.P4 application was submitted. However, the concerned respondent refused to accept the application on the premise that the petitioner had failed to produce a No Objection Certificate from the financier. It is stated that the petitioner, in the said circumstances, sent a letter to the 3rd respondent requesting for issuance of NOC. However, the financier did not respond. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have filed Ext.P8 request along with a declaration. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

¶15

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the request

¶16

stated to have been submitted by the petitioner has not been received by the 2nd respondent.

¶17

The issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by

¶18

W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2023

¶19

¶20

the law laid down in Shabu Sukumaran v. RTO, TVM, and Ors. [2018

¶21

(2) KLT 219], wherein this Court, after considering Section 51 of the Act observed as under:

¶22

S.51 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) deals with special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement. Sub-section (6) of S.51 provides that the registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of a permit under S.81 or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration under sub- section (14) of S.41, or for the assignment of a new registration mark under S.47, or removal of the vehicle to another State, or at the time of conversion of the vehicle from one class to another, or for issue of no objection certificate under S.48 or for change of residence or place of business under S.49, or for the alteration of the vehicle under S.52, make an application to the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement of hire purchase (such person being referred to as the financier) for the issue of a no objection certificate. Sub-section (7) of S.51 provides that within seven days of the receipt of an application under sub-section (6), the financier may issue, or refuse, for reason which shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier failed to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate the reasons for refusal to issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days, the

¶23

W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2023

¶24

¶25

certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier.

¶26

Sub-section (8) of S.51 provides that the registered owner shall, while applying to the appropriate authority for the renewal of any permit under S. 81, or for the issue of a duplicate certificate of registration, under sub- section (14) of S.41, or while applying for assignment of a new registration mark under S.47, submit with such application the certificate, if any, obtained under sub-section (7) or, where no such certificate has been obtained, the communication received from the financier under that sub-section, or, as the case may be, a declaration that he has not received any communication from the financier within the period of seven days specified in that sub-section. As per Clause (a) of sub-section (9) of S.51, on receipt of an application for the renewal of any permit or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration or for assignment of a new registration mark in respect of a vehicle which is held under the said agreement, the appropriate authority may, subject to the other provisions of this Act, in a case where the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, either renew or refuse to renew the permit or issue or refuse to issue the duplicate certificate of registration or assign or refuse to assign a new registration mark.

¶27

The provisions under sub-section (9) of S.51 of the Act would make it explicitly clear that even in a case in which the financier has objected the renewal of permit, the registering authority

¶28

W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2023

¶29

¶30

has the discretion to renew the permit, after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, merely for the reason that the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for under sub-section (7) of S.51, the registering authority cannot reject an application made for renewal of contract carriage permit, in a mechanical exercise of power. Since certain discretion has been vested with the registering authority, in view of the provisions under sub-section (9) of S.51 of the Act, the registering authority has to apply its mind to the objections, if any, raised by the financier and take an appropriate decision as to whether despite such objections of the financier, the applicant is entitled for renewal of permit.

¶31

The petitioner states that along with the application for

¶32

issuance of a permit, he has submitted Ext.P8 declaration under Section 51(8) of the Act. According to the learned Government Pleader, the request along with the declaration has not been received.

¶33

In that view of the matter, necessary directions can be

¶34

issued.

¶35

a) There will be a direction to the petitioner to resubmit

¶36

the application for a permit along with the declaration in terms of Section 51(8) of the Act before the 2nd

¶37

W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2023

¶38

¶39

respondent, who shall consider the same and take a decision in terms of Section 51(9)(a) of the Act for renewing the temporary permit of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-05 AV-1970, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

b) Before passing orders, the 2nd respondent shall afford

¶41

an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the financier.

¶42

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2023

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2291/2023

¶48

PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS:

¶49

ExhibitP1THETRUECOPYOFCERTIFICATEOFREGISTRATION
OFTHEVEHICLENO.KL05AV1970
ExhibitP2ATRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED16.8.2022IN
W.P.(CRL.)145/22
ExhibitP3ATRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED20.12.2022IN
W.P.(C.)39985/22
ExhibitP4ATRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONALONGWITH
REGISTRATIONCERTIFICATEOFTHEVEHICLEDATED
29.12.2022
ExhibitP5ATRUECOPYOFREPRESENTATIONBEFORE3RD
RESPONDENTDATED29.12.2022
ExhibitP6ATRUECOPYOFLETTERTO3RDRESPONDENTDATED
04.1.2023
ExhibitP7ATRUECOPYOFPOSTALRECEIPTDATED04.1.2023
ExhibitP8THETRUECOPYOFTHEDECLARATIONBYTHE
PETITIONERDATED12.1.2023

¶50

RESPONDENT(S)EXHIBITS:NIL

Sajan Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1. M.M. Antony Vs 1. Govt. of India

M/S.Umma Transport Vs the Regional Transport Officer

G & M Transporting Co. Vs *the Joint Regional Transport Officer

K.v.George Alias George Varghese Vs Sub Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer

Sajitha Beevi Vs Regional Passport Officer

P.v.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs P.M.Narayanan Namboodiri